----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Cc: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: WCAG conformance profiles
> Two comments:
>
> 1. This has been superseded by RDF/EARL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
Ok... so we need to define using these...
> 2. The proposed PICS ratings for levels 1+ and 2+ don't specify which
> checkpoints have been met beyond level 1 in the first case and
> beyond level 2 in the second. Thus they don't constitute a
> complete or accurate conformance claim, because someone reading
> this claim wouldn't know which checkpoints were involved. That is
> why I specified in my proposal that at levels 1+ and 2+ the
> relevant checkpoints have to be identified in the profile.
Hum... at this point this could cause confusion... The real claim could be
done only if every web site that requires the claim submit a form in the W3C
web sites where declare the point that are soddisfed so at the end of the
form will be assigned a UIN (unique identification number) for the claim for
this web site. This will guarantee that the web site owner by himself check
the points and claim that his web site pass these points.
So, when from his web page he link to the W3C conformance page, he could do
this like:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/check.php?id=XXXXXXX
So will be shown the claim reached by this web site (1, 1+, 2, 2+, 3) and -
if intemediate level, will be shown the checkpoint of intermediate level.
This could be the unique guarantee for don't make confusion for the
intemediate levels.